Hello all,

I'm a bit new to this forum, although, I always used it for pdf's and manuals for my car. I drive a stock 2006 M35x. Well, I put drilled and slotted brakes on it, that's about it with performance. Oh and, I put pirelli cinturatos. I say that because I was brake checked by a cop... check out the video below. He literally tried to have me smash into him...

Any ideas on what I can/should do?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPCX8rVPxvo

Hmmm. I think you might be hosed on the missing front plate and dark tint tickets. Your plate was in the trunk and I assume your tint's darker than NJ allows. (NJ towns have targeted tinted cars for many years, and I grew up in Teaneck). You should read those 2 tickets closely, in some cases, they might dismiss the ticket if you can prove you fixed the problems, like installing the plate, and removing the illegal tint. Different towns have different rules. But as far as the tailgating ticket? you might have a chance at fighting that, but since I'm no lawyer, I cannot say for sure.

The NJ statute says,
"Tailgating N.J.S.A. 39:4-89 is a violation when a driver follows another vehicle more closely than reasonable considering the speed of the vehicles, the conditions of the roadway and the amount of traffic on the road."

So the big question is how close to his rear is considered "unreasonable" given light traffic and dry daylight. If I'm not mistaken, a "reasonable" dry distance is considered one full sized car length (not a Smartfourtwo) for each 10 mph. I'm sure there are regulations published as to the specific distances. But If my figure is at all close, and the speed limit was 25mph, that means you'd be considered tailgating if you were less than 2.5 car lengths behind the cruiser. The officer was correct that you were closing on him, though not rapidly. I suspect you were close enough to the state definition of tailgating to provoke him. But without knowing those specific distances, I'm just guessing. At this point, you might want to consult a lawyer to learn those specifics, and to see if you have a strong enough case to fight that one ticket. The other two you can't fight unless they have a "repair" clause.

I agree that his brake checking you was douchey, but I don't believe he did anything illegal, so I don't think you can argue that angle. For future reference, if you know your car has too-dark tint and no front license plate, the last thing you want to do is get close enough to a police cruiser to get noticed. I'm sorry if I sound like a dad. I am one. I can't help it.

Best of luck.

At the moment that he puts his brake lights on... 45 seconds in... you are both right next to a parked SUV on the right. This is where he applies his brakes first. I mean right when his lights turn on, his rear is flush with the SUV's front... and you are about a car length behind the rear bumper of that SUV at that moment... that is two car lengths. It was a sunny day and no pedestrians and seemed like a safe distance. The officer could have braked hard at that SUV just for the purpose of measuring your distance visually. Your video could be helpful maybe. The law isn't clear in a measurement (similar to loud exhaust laws that don't provide a measureable Decibel limit). So this seems almost like lawyer territory.

The whole scene seemed like a normal drive, up until the officer slammed on the brakes. Your trailing distance seemed normal for a regular car, but no extra padding for kissing up to a cop. The fact that you safely stopped without hitting him is in your favor. Also, you've learned and been taught the safe following distance and were practicing it as taught. No one gave you a measurement and no one was out there with a tape to check. This seems like a normal commute.

People on average aren't good at eyeballing distance. Even you both said 4 feet and you probably have more like 6 feet between your cars when stopped. This office is no better at it, furthermore, he's not watching the road ahead if he's focused on the rear view mirror.

The youtube video has too much commentary about intelligence and should be re-edited or removed. Publicly pointing out officers need for an education never helps your case in court, just on the street.

BTW - how does slamming on the brakes help someone who is afraid they're going to get ran into? I imagine slamming on the brakes in front of a speeding car would insure a collision. That is a credibility argument in your favor I think. In court, not on youtube.

Ditto what Bubba1 says in his very last paragraph.

How much is the ticket for the tailgating and sucking it up? If it's less that $400 bucks... and you have things to do and places to be, it might not be worth your time fighting it.

Hey,

Thanks for both replies.

I also agree with several points you both made, but disagree on a couple. I agree that I was closer than the normal distance for a cop... I don't kiss up to cops. If they don't have their emergency lights on, I treat them as if they are another car. They don't get special privileges if their lights and sirens aren't on.

That being said, I have a clean record lol. I don't have a 'thing' against cops, but I am an advocate for equality, and generally, no B.S. from those that aren't suppose to give you B.S., in this case, a cop.

You were both right about tailgating... it is reasonable distance without a numerical value on the value. 1 car length for 10MPH is a folktale especially in NJ. We probably leave 2 car lengths on the highway going 70+ haha.... We're dense enough. I can't even imagine leaving 6 car lengths on the highway... I can't imagine it around me at all, from the local highways to the parkway.

The cost of the ticket isn't a big deal. I don't know how much it is but I don't really care. But it carries 5 points...

Also, I'm a college kid about to go on summer vaca. Granted, I work and will be taking summer classes, but I'll have more than ample time to fight this, especially since this is worth it, in more aspects than just the ticket.

I am going to show the court a different video than the one I posted haha... I will show them the raw video, or perhaps, one with sub titles, but I won't edit it like the one I posted.

As for whether or not the cop did anything illegal... I read an article that said how people who are brake checking you can possibly be brought to court for 'instilling fear of physical harm into you." Ofcourse, it would be hard to get them to come to court in normal situations, but in this situation, I have easy access to him.

I chose to mention the cop's education because alot of people over-estimate the training and capabilities of the police. Not to undermine them, but they aren't that efficient at what they do. They are also not that skilled or qualified, and I think that directly relates to the service the public receives. Think about it: most cops are uneducated people who only have high school diplomas or GED's. I'm not saying you have to have a college degree to be educated, but it certainly helps the average Joe by a long shot.

In the slim chance that this story makes the news, I think it would be a great way to push for police reform. I know its a long shot. But I don't think I'm wrong to ask that the police have more required education.

It might just be me, but don't you think we should have well-rounded officers policing society, instead of guys that are fresh out of high school that, essentially, don't have much life experience?

Cop is a moron and could have caused an accident with his behavior.

I've shared this with Woodward and a few other forums and Facebook groups.

Bubba1 wrote:I agree that his brake checking you was douchey, but I don't believe he did anything illegal,

That's a load of BS. If someone braked like that with a police car behind them, they'd get a pile of charges and fines.

Get out of here.

Jesda wrote:

Bubba1 wrote:I agree that his brake checking you was douchey, but I don't believe he did anything illegal,

That's a load of BS. If someone braked like that with a police car behind them, they'd get a pile of charges and fines.

Get out of here.

AGREE, AGREE, AGREE!!!!

Can you imagine if someone brake checked a cop, or even an undercover cop??? I would not be surprised if the car was towed, and the driver was arrested. I can honestly see both of those things happening.

Jesda wrote:Cop is a moron and could have caused an accident with his behavior.

I've shared this with Woodward and a few other forums and Facebook groups.

Thank you for sharing this! I am trying to get the world out as much as possible, but honestly this is the first video i've ever uploaded to youtube.

Thank you though, I really appreciate it

obM35X, I think trying to make this go viral now is a mistake, and it could make matters worse for you if it ends up in court, especially with your commentary. you really should consult a lawyer before making this even more public. That video shows you were close enough to the cruiser to potentially have met the criteria for tailgating. I know following closely behind the car in front of you is popular and traditional in time-obsessed northern NJ. That does not make it legal. Think of it like speeding, most NJ folks do it, but it's still illegal IF the officer decides to pull you over for it. If you've never been pulled over for speeding, see how far you get using the old "but everyone else is doing it" excuse. It guarantees a ticket. All the dense population excuse does is make it impractical for them to ticket everyone. But keep in mind, in your case, you and the officer were not in dense traffic. If you did meet the criteria for tailgating, and a lawyer is in a better position to determine that than non-lawyers like you, me, or Jesda, you risk not only losing in court, but killing your chances for a plea deal and tailgating carries 5 pts. That's a lot. Plus, if you happen to live in or near Clifton. I suspect those tint & missing front license plate tickets will become more frequent if you keep on publicizing the incident on line if you decide not to fix them. You're gonna put yourself in a position that you'll have to fix them or pay a lot of money. I'm simply suggesting you take the emotion out of your experience, and substitute some common sense. The playing field with police is rarely level, (that's just the way it is, you must respect their authority). So tempting fate by driving closely behind a MARKED cruiser on an empty road (especially while knowingly driving a car with obvious visual violations that hinder your identification... let that sink in for a moment) is not only a poor decision on your part, but literally an invitation for any officer to engage you if you get too close to him/her. Yes, surely this officer could have done something else than brake check you, (and I'm not calling you Shirley ) but from his perspective, he was pulling you over on an empty road in a way to minimize your potential escape. He didn't know who you were or your intentions. And not many people are foolish enough to ride a cruiser's rear that closely, much less while driving a vehicle with violations. So if your wondering if he felt justified to stop you in an abrupt manner, the answer, unfortunately, is probably yes. The fact you were able to stop before him suggests it was far from a life threatening maneuver as you were both drivng 25mph or less. The point is you didn't use good judgement here. You obviously knew it was a police cruiser, so toss out the unmarked car argument. I know this is not what you want to read, but you don't have a slam dunk win case here. Fwiw I agree the incident sucks, and the officer had other options. But consulting a lawyer is a better path for you at this point than premature, personally spun, internet publicity. And hopefully from this point forward, you'll give police cruisers more space than you give others.

I realize in discussions like this, the goal is to get lots of people in agreement, but I'm generally pretty disagreeable.

The more I read, the more I'm able to draw some conclusions (I "profile" for a living, and have for 15 years).

Your commentary on officer education, coupled with your age and comments about 'not caring about the cost of the ticket,' as well as your disagreement with a couple logical corrections, leads me to believe you might be a bit of a wanker.

That's not to say the officer was not out of line. He may well have been a douche. It's totally legal to be a douhe, even if you're a LEO. Imagine if we passed legislation that prevented douches from attending college?

You're not equipped to win this one. You've already shown your hand, it's discoverable and admissable, and despite your contention that you don't have "a thing" against LEOs, your behavior and commentary speaks volumes. This ain't the place to play Junior Attorney.

Some advice: A little more respect for people who have the sack to do what you can't (or won't) will carry you far. Be careful out there, chalk this one up to experience, and recognize that some people do indeed deserve a little extra consideration, even if it's only because they can make you have a crappy day - legally.

I didn't put much thought into my replies here. Didn't think I had to. Maybe they came off as condescending. It's going to be hard to comment on all of the points everyone made. I was cruising home, I wasn't up his rear. Even when he slammed on the brakes, I was still playing music because, to be honest, I thought this guy had a problem with his car for a split second. Either that or he was lost or something. Only when he started to approach me did I realize that he was going to accuse me, and then I lowered my music.

Also, the LAW FOR TAILGATING is not following at a reasonable distance. I'm not using the dense population as an excuse. But at the same time, legally, a car must follow at a reasonable distance. That is all.

When I said that I didn't care about the cost of the ticket, I didn't mean to sound like a jerk. I just meant that it isn't a big deal. I don't get pulled over alot. Maybe 3 times in the 5 years of driving... this included. Never been pulled over for not having front plates, and never have been pulled over for tints.

Also, AZhitman, not sure if you're a cop or not... but Don't take this the wrong way. I don't have a thing for cops, I'll say it again. But let's look at the facts, cops in this country are uneducated, and undertrained esp when compared to cops in other advanced countries. In some european countries, cops are trained to shoot the limbs and even the weapons of suspects...whereas here.... I mean I've never heard of that before. Again, I'm grateful for the police, don't get me wrong, but I do think they can be much better. As a society, we pay cops pretty well... I can ask for those that get paid to be atleast educated with a bachelor's degree.

Additionally, you're point about respecting people 'who have the sack to do what you can't...' frankly, that is just stupid, and I won't even comment on that.

obM35x wrote:In some european countries, cops are trained to shoot the limbs and even the weapons of suspects...

No cops are trained this way, except in hollywood movies. If there IS some backward country somewhere training things this way, they are the ones doing it wrong. Anybody with any actual firearms education knows there are a number of reasons why things just don't work like that.

I forgot where I read it, but it was in an article. I believe the country was Scotland

AZhitman wrote:That's not to say the officer was not out of line. He may well have been a douche. It's totally legal to be a douhe, even if you're a LEO. Imagine if we passed legislation that prevented douches from attending college?

You're allowed to be a douche with your words, attire, and attitude.
You're not allowed to be a douche by intentionally slamming your brakes in a way that could cause a collision.

OP's attitude isn't important to me (maybe it will be to the judge). What I see is a police officer who nearly caused a collision on purpose. He should have pulled to the shoulder, followed him, and then pulled him over. That would have been the safest choice for himself as well as the public. Then this thread wouldnt exist, a ticket would have been issued, and life would go on.

The burden of professionalism is higher among those we grant a special level of trust and authority to perform certain kinds of jobs: doctors, lawyers, police officers, nurses, teachers, etc.

obM35x wrote:Also, the LAW FOR TAILGATING is not following at a reasonable distance. I'm not using the dense population as an excuse. But at the same time, legally, a car must follow at a reasonable distance. That is all.

I think the problem is that you assume you were following him at what YOU consider a reasonable distance, which may not coincide with the actual published standards. In other words, you're shooting from the hip. If you're wrong, you're get the 5 pts, plus the fine plus court costs. And if you submit that video as evidence without knowing the actual standards, you could easily end up sealing your own fate by confirming the officer's assertion. Ever hear the expression, "a person who represents himself in court has a fool for a lawyer?" That's why I suggest consulting a lawyer. It's not like your the first guy ever to get cited for tailgating. There are likely published standards out there, they just may not be instantly available on the internet. A experienced traffic lawyer should have that info for you.

At the end of the day, a low speed brake check, as douchey as it is, is not illegal. Had there been a collision, perhaps you might have more of a case. I don't believe you're gonna sway a judge away from the fact that you may have been tailgating. Overall, I think you were both wrong. He acted douchey and you were following him too closely. But his acting douchey does not negate what you did wrong if the facts support it. Make sense?

I see what you're saying, but to be honest, I think it is much simpler than that. There are two main aspects to this. Was I tailgating? No, I don't think I was. And according to the law: N.J.S.A. 39:4-89 is a violation when a driver follows another vehicle more closely than reasonable considering the speed of the vehicles, the conditions of the roadway and the amount of traffic on the road.

I was following at a reasonable distance. You can argue alot of reasons. You can even pause throughout the video while a car passed the cruiser, and matchup the shadows. I wasn't tailgating. MAYBE I was a little too close at the very end when the cop slowed down even further. But at that point, he was already brake checking me.

I met up with a lawyer initially. His exact words, "HAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA. Sorry, I know youre in a situation, but I am laughing my a$$ off. This is not a problem. This is a joke."

I am going in without him though.

Now, about my attitude regarding this entire case. Call me crazy, but I'm not too amped up about a cop who probably gets paid nearly $100k, of my tax dollars, brake checking me and instigating an issue. Like what's the point of brake checking someone? How can you think that? How can someone who is sworn to protect and serve able to think something like that? That is my entire point. It's disgusting. the problem is not the police. It's the individual. Maybe he has problems at home, i.e. personal issues. If he does, I feel bad for him, but he can't bring that aggression to his job. Now let's think proactively... this definitely isn't the first or last time that police misconduct occurs.... (we all agree that the police shouldn't slam on his brakes at this point right?)

The news is riddled with stories of officers who act in a negative way. They shouldn't be cops. I believe that those individuals who are prone to bad decisions are attracted to becoming Leo's because of the requirements needed to be come a cop. Think about it, if you don't want to go to school, or get any specialized training, and you don't have any talents or skills, BUT you would still like to be paid well, then you can become a cop. Ofcourse, I know I'm going to take alot of heat for saying that, but that is how it is right now. I'm fairly young. The people who I went to school with that were getting C's and D's in highschool are now becoming officers. Good for them for pushing themselves. But at the same time, it supports my views that requirements for LEO's should be higher to weed out those who are prone to bad decisions.

Bubba1 wrote:At the end of the day, a low speed brake check, as douchey as it is, is not illegal.

Are you out of your mind? We disagree often over silly stuff but this is an absolutely wrong, indefensible assertion. Willful disregard for safety while operating a motor vehicle will earn you a misdemeanor.

I don't agree with the attitude or assertion that police are inherently uneducated or ignorant but you are forgiving some seriously dangerous behavior. Get out of here with that BS.

Do us a favor and brake check a cop and report back with what you get charged with.

obM35x wrote:I didn't put much thought into my replies here. Didn't think I had to. Maybe they came off as condescending.

When I said that I didn't care about the cost of the ticket, I didn't mean to sound like a jerk. I just meant that it isn't a big deal.

Understood. Hard to convey inflection and tone on a forum. Makes total sense.

obM35x wrote:But let's look at the facts, cops in this country are uneducated, and undertrained esp when compared to cops in other advanced countries.

I'm gonna have to pull rank on you here, because you're getting some really bad intel somewhere. Since you respect academic education, know that this is my area of expertise and education - My degree is in CJ, and I've actually taught at the academy. Our LEOs are far better-trained in a great number of areas than most other first-world countries - Primarily because of the broad range of crimes they are likely to encounter, as well as the diversity and broad spectrum of the population. American LEOs are trained in a great number of disciplines that other countries simply ignore. The most obvious being marksmanship (many of the countries you cite don't even have armed LEOs). Mental health, threat identification and assessment, linguistics, sociology... there's a LOT of training happening. Don't get too hung up on the need for a degree (although I'll touch on that in a minute). It's not the end-all, be-all. Besides, look how many college students are blithering idiots - that education isn't helping them much in the real world.

obM35x wrote:In some european countries, cops are trained to shoot the limbs and even the weapons of suspects...whereas here.... I mean I've never heard of that before.

That's because it's patently false, and would be a colossolly idiotic idea if they did. THat goes against even the most BASIC of firearms training. A firearm is not intended to maim. Someone has lied to you with a straight face, and you should slap the snot out of them next time you see them. A firearm is deadly force. I'd challenge you to show me ONE police agency that teaches such nonsense, and I'll publicly shame them for being window-licking morons. There ARS conditions in which a sharpshooter (advanced marksman) in a LE agency may be called upon to pull off a "trick shot" - but these are incredibly, incredibly rare. Let me be clear: No human being who knows the first thing about firearms is trained to "shoot at a limb."

obM35x wrote:I do think they can be much better.

Agreed. 100%. Any department worth a damn will demand continuous and endless education for its LEOs.

obM35x wrote:As a society, we pay cops pretty well...

We do? Do you have any idea how much a LEO starts off at, hourly, even in a major metropolitan department? Again, someone's feeding you bad intel. In PHX, it's $24 an hour.

You're young. That may sound like a lot. We pay beginning nurses $36 an hour. A good welder can make $50 an hour. Which one is most likely to be killed in the line of duty? I'm not gonna go further with this, but just know that in the grand scheme of things, your statement is grossly incorrect. (Caveat: A good officer who works hard and puts in his time has the CAPACITY to make a damn nice living. However, so do the other two professions I used as an example, neither of which require a Bachelor's degree. Think about that.)

obM35x wrote:I can ask for those that get paid to be atleast educated with a bachelor's degree.

I think your estimation of the value of a degree is, in part, overrated. And, to be fair, most departments are looking for that nowadays. While it is not required to have a college degree to become a LEO, an associate’s or bachelor’s degree in criminal justice can set candidates apart from individuals without a degree. In a field where a single-digit percentage of applicants are hired, it may as well be mandatory.

obM35x wrote:Additionally, you're point about respecting people 'who have the sack to do what you can't...' frankly, that is just stupid, and I won't even comment on that.

That was based on perceived disrespect. You've clarified your comments, so perhaps that doesn't apply to you. I think you'd agree, however, that a lot of people 'armchair quarterback' the job of an LEO, based on what they see on TV, and don't know the first thing about the rigors of the job or what it takes to have a successful, long career. There's a reason our brothers and sisters in blue have an incredibly high divorce, alcoholism, and suicide rate. My comment to those people is this: If you wouldn't say it about our troops, don't say it about our LEOs. If you put it in that context, it's far from stupid.

Anyhow, good topic. I don't have a dog in this fght, but I hope you learn something through this process, regardless of how you decide to proceed. If so, it's been a useful experience. Be careful out there, and if you sincerely believe something needs to change, and that you've been done wrong, I'd be the first to voice my support - As I said earlier, things can ALWAYS improve. Good luck with it, man!

obM35x wrote:Was I tailgating? No, I don't think I was.

It doesn't matter what you think. That's not intended to be rude, it's a fact. You're not a judge.

obM35x wrote: And according to the law: N.J.S.A. 39:4-89 is a violation when a driver follows another vehicle more closely than reasonable considering the speed of the vehicles, the conditions of the roadway and the amount of traffic on the road.

The fact that you didn't hit him is prime facie evidence that you probably were at a safe distance. You're welcome. You may still lose.

obM35x wrote:I was following at a reasonable distance.

See the first 2 points above.

obM35x wrote:MAYBE I was a little too close at the very end when the cop slowed down even further.

That's an admission of guilt. If I were your attorney, I'd tell you to STFU. You're not helping yourself, you're just spewing words because you're young an inexperienced.

obM35x wrote:But at that point, he was already brake checking me.

Define that term. If you can't, see my previous comment. I'll save you some time: You can't. All the officer has to say is that he saw something that gave him reason to slow down. You lose, thanks for wasting the court's time.

Fair? Maybe not. But you're not an expert, so you have to walk in with the weapons you possess, not the weapons you wish you had.

obM35x wrote:I met up with a lawyer initially. His exact words, "HAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA. Sorry, I know youre in a situation, but I am laughing my a$$ off. This is not a problem. This is a joke."

Well... damn. I'd be a little pissed, but most of these guys have seen hundreds, if not thousands, of traffic cases. I'd see past the douchey response and recognize that he's right.

obM35x wrote:I am going in without him though.

Of course you are.

obM35x wrote:Now, about my attitude regarding this entire case.

So, now we're gonna get the true attitude?

obM35x wrote:Call me crazy

Nope. Not the word I'd use.

obM35x wrote:I'm not too amped up

Yeah, you kinda are.

obM35x wrote:about a cop who probably gets paid nearly $100k

ORLY? You in Beverly Hills? C'mon with that BS.

obM35x wrote:of my tax dollars

There's what I was waiting for. The "Entitled Millenial." Yes, your tax dollars. You own property? You don't file Exempt? You're dumping a lot of money into the municipal coffers, eh? High roller? GTFO here with that nonsense.

obM35x wrote:brake checking me and instigating an issue.

Rule #1 of playing Junior Attorney: Its not what you think. It's what you can PROVE. Judgement will be for the municipality, and you're likely to incur the wrath of a judge with that 'tude.

obM35x wrote:How can someone who is sworn to protect and serve able to think something like that?

Most mind readers are far older... and exist only in works of fiction.

obM35x wrote:That is my entire point. It's disgusting. the problem is not the police. It's the individual. Maybe he has problems at home, i.e. personal issues. If he does, I feel bad for him, but he can't bring that aggression to his job. Now let's think proactively... this definitely isn't the first or last time that police misconduct occurs.... (we all agree that the police shouldn't slam on his brakes at this point right?)

You have a vivid imagination. LOADS of assumptions there. We haven't even established that you were brake-checked. But by all means, go ahead and ascribe all sorts of bad behavior to someone because you don't like how it played out.

He probably killed Freddie Gray AND Prince, and is the reason Top Gear is no longer on the air.

obM35x wrote:The news is riddled with stories of officers who act in a negative way. They shouldn't be cops. I believe that those individuals who are prone to bad decisions are attracted to becoming Leo's because of the requirements needed to be come a cop. Think about it, if you don't want to go to school, or get any specialized training, and you don't have any talents or skills, BUT you would still like to be paid well, then you can become a cop. Ofcourse, I know I'm going to take alot of heat for saying that, but that is how it is right now. I'm fairly young. The people who I went to school with that were getting C's and D's in highschool are now becoming officers. Good for them for pushing themselves. But at the same time, it supports my views that requirements for LEO's should be higher to weed out those who are prone to bad decisions.

I feel like I just stumbled into a #BLM rally. Remember my comment about the military?

Look, man. You seem like a cool guy, and you write well - that's a good sign. Shows you're fairly intelligent. But now you're just spewing emotional nonsense. You're basing your opinion of an entire profession on a tiny slice of experience, and you're what, maybe 19, 20?

I get that you're bent. But I'm gonna go on record here as saying you're so completely off-base with a lot of this, it's not worth discussing any further. You clearly don't appreciate the job, since it's filled with low-life retards who exist only to make you have a bad day. If you think for a split second that having an advanced degree somehow precludes poor decision-making (assuming, again, that the LEO in this case did what you believe he did), then I suppose we'll have to wait until you're 25 years older and know a lot more about the world.

BTW, a few suggestions:

Don't roll without a plate. If the judge asks you for details on the "repairs," you'd better make sure you didn't just make that up off-the-cuff.

Window tint. Stupid law, I agree - but it's an officer safety thing, so I guess that's the justification. Don't roll with tint, especially if you know it's a violation.

You showed your hand immediately during the stop. He knew within 10 seconds that you were going to dispute it, so you gave away any advantage you might have otherwise had. Hard to do, in the moment - I suffer from it too - my mouth and feelings get the best of me.

When pulled over, roll ALL your windows down. Both hands on the wheel - or hang one out the window and one on the wheel. Engine and music off. Yes sir, no sir, thank you sir. It goes a LONG way.

LEOs expect a little "extra consideration" when driving, and not giving it is stupid. SURE, you don't HAVE to. But this is the consequence of that decision.

Good job having all your paperwork in order. That helps too.

You were too close. Your measurements were WAY off, but his were worse. Doesn't matter. You weren't 2.5 car lengths away, which is a good rule of thumb - and the one the judge is gonna use. That's all that matters.

Was he douchey? Yep. Were you being a prick? Yep. Who wins in that scenario? Not you, bud.

Fortunately, you have lots of support from the YouTube commenters. Unfortunately, those won't help.

Jesda wrote:

Bubba1 wrote:At the end of the day, a low speed brake check, as douchey as it is, is not illegal.

Are you out of your mind? We disagree often over silly stuff but this is an absolutely wrong, indefensible assertion. Willful disregard for safety while operating a motor vehicle will earn you a misdemeanor.

I don't agree with the attitude or assertion that police are inherently uneducated or ignorant but you are forgiving some seriously dangerous behavior. Get out of here with that BS.

Do us a favor and brake check a cop and report back with what you get charged with.

we do agree on most important issues, and I suspect we're not far apart on this one either.

I think you're focused on the term "brake check". would a better description of the officer's action in this case be an "aggressive way to stop a suspect while going slowly on an empty road?" I think if OP had slammed into the cruiser as a result of the cop braking, OP might have a better case with that video. But that didn't happen here, they were both going slowly on an empty road. Now the video potentially serves as evidence for the officer. I suspect that's why he suggested you bring it to court.

we all agree that there were better, safer ways to pull OP over. But an officer performing that maneuver in that context, it's still probably legal. Still better to let an attorney confirm it. To illustrate the difference another way. Consider the PIT maneuver. Of course if you or I purposely ram into a rear corner of another car to make 'em spin out, it's illegal. (despite many BMw owners that deserve it... ) But if a cop does it to a perceived aggressive suspect, then it's legal. And to follow that closely on a two lane road, with not one but 2 noticeable violations that hinder identification, is it unreasonable for the officer to question the motives of the driver? Probably not. And the court will unfortunately, probably agree the officer. that's reality.
For the record, I'm not crazy enough to brake check anyone. I'm also not foolish enough to follow a police cruiser doing the speed limit THAT closely with obvious visual violations that he could easily notice. It seems obvious that OP is young, impatient and inexperienced. That's why I feel both parties deserve a "Nala memorial" fail award. This incident does not rise to the level that it should be shared with the entire world in OP's attempt to shame the officer. I'm sorry, the kid needs to cool off, and drive less aggressively, and of course fix what's wrong with his car. it's inevitable he'll get caught again if he doesn't alter his driving attitude. There was no reason for him to follow the cop so closely on a 2 lane empty road with no place to pass. Yes, Impatience while driving is a tradition in NJ, but OP has not yet grasped that it's not a legal "right" and not something to do with a cop. You're never gonna win that kinda battle with a cop. As OP gets older and more experienced, hopefully he'll figure out that he needs to lose that chip on his shoulder while driving, and refrain from poking the "bear" . They bite back...hard. That's common sense 101.

My advice to OP? Take the gigantic hint from the lawyer with sarcastic laughter. you have a weak case. Remember, that lawyer has likely handled many cases just like yours. Accept that the main reason you're publicizing this incident is retribution for the method he used to stop you, which does not alter the fact you followed him too closely according to the law. I suspect your opinion of an acceptable following distance is irrelevant in court and will result in a conviction.

But if you really insist on taking this to court without a lawyer, some advice:
1 Take the high road.
2.dress nice (business casual is fine), take a bath, comb your hair
3.show respect to the officer, court clerk, and judge. Say "sir" sincerely to the officer ("your honor" to the judge if he asks you a question).
4. I'd advise against showing that video in court, I think you'll be found guilty if you do.
5. You're gonna quickly find out that cops are not evil money suckers who work only to annoy you. The officers will usually have a cordial chat with you prior to the hearing with the judge to feel you out. Take advantage of that opportunity. If you don't act like a know-it-all, and he thinks you made an honest mistake, (a perk that comes with your being young and inexperienced) there's a good chance he'll offer you a plea bargain down to a lower tier violation that carries less or no points. The judges almost always rubber stamps plea deals, well, unless you act like a douche. Like you even said, you're not concerned about the money as much as the points. That's the strategy you should try: be polite, angle for the plea bargain, consider it a lesson learned, stop the internet shaming, and move on.

I still wish you good luck.

I've always heard brake checking is illegal, and have gotten tickets for far less.
I'd have a field day in court with this one. You might want to lawyer up just to be doubly sure. Good luck OP.

PapaSmurf2k3 wrote:I've always heard brake checking is illegal, and have gotten tickets for far less.
I'd have a field day in court with this one. You might want to lawyer up just to be doubly sure. Good luck OP.

He said he did consult with a lawyer and got laughed at. Not a good omen.

Interesting situation.

Did you postpone your court date?
April 8th passed before you posted the original thread- shouldn't you have a ruling?

frapjap wrote:Interesting situation.

Did you postpone your court date?
April 8th passed before you posted the original thread- shouldn't you have a ruling?

From his comment in the Youtube comments,

"There are alot of comments regarding the court date. The court date was initially set for April 8th, but I called them to let them know I am pleading not guilty. They rescheduled it to April 19th.

On April 19th, they tried to give me a plea bargain, but I rejected it. They rescheduled me, for trail on May 26th. I will give everyone an update as soon as possible!"

Bubba1 wrote:I think you're focused on the term "brake check". would a better description of the officer's action in this case be an "aggressive way to stop a suspect while going slowly on an empty road?" I think if OP had slammed into the cruiser as a result of the cop braking, OP might have a better case with that video. But that didn't happen here, they were both going too slowly on an empty road. Now the video will more likely serve as evidence that benefits the officer.

A suspect? Come back to earth for a moment. It's not like he was cutting off a gunman fleeing the scene of a violent crime. It wasn't even a speeder doing 100 in a school zone.

The cop got annoyed and did something unnecessarily dangerous -and- unprofessional. There was a far, far better way to handle it.

Excusing this is nothing but an appeal to authority.

I sent this thread to Jalopnik and also posted it on my blog.

Comments are interesting.

http://jalopnik.com/why-did-this-cop-br ... 1773612956

darylzero wrote:"On April 19th, they tried to give me a plea bargain, but I rejected it. They rescheduled me, for trail on May 26th. "

Uh, you're f***ed.

I agree. Legally this isn't going anywhere.

which is why trying to internet shame the officer on a global scale seems unfair, especially when submitting it from only one point of view, without giving the other side even a chance to defend themselves, and without consulting anyone knowledgeable with the law or police protocol.